https://bsky.app/profile/verdverm.bsky.social/post/3kvjythgh...
There is a lot of nuance to the data and the context, so "dwarf" is probably not the best term, especially in a more general PAC context
Even so, if you click through she has another page that lists hybrid PACs. I have no idea if even that is the full picture; US politics are complicated. The project is open source so perhaps you can submit a PR to make it better.
It’s showing the same data that verdverm linked over at the FEC, which places Fairshake at #9 out of any kind of committee. Arguably ActBlue and WinRed shouldn’t really be listed there, since they are fundraising platforms that serve as an intermediary.
I'm not sure the data supports crypto spending more than other industries in lobbying, I think they are just doing it via a single PAC rather than spinning up dozens of targeted PACs for each race.
That’s a big claim, but it’s presented without evidence. Do you have any examples?
On that note:
> I'm not sure the data supports crypto spending more than other industries in lobbying
What data are you using to support this belief? Do you have additional data that she left out? That would be a good way to support the allegation of cherry-picking.
You also completely failed to address my larger point, which is that the data or code is not flawed, your assumptions are.
Mind you, given the deep bias HN has against cryptocurrencies of any shape or form, I feel here she has her ideal audience here and we're the ones swimming against the current.
There are constantly HN commenters on a crusade to extol and defend the alleged virtues of various "crypto" projects. We could accuse these folks of having a "bias against government-backed currency".
Perhaps HN has a bias _for_ true stories of fraud, corruption and crime rather than a bias _against_ all crypto projects.
ETFs aren't really financial instruments that the mainstream public will likely interact with or directly invest in, but CBDCs will probably proliferate wildly throughout the global economy in a matter of years so it's a bit of a missed chance for the public to weigh in on them.
How does it show that? It suggests there was 200 million raised for the 2024 election, but that doesn't seem to be in comparison to anything. The US government borrowing alone is multiple trillions per year; people would be expected to spend way more than a few hundred million to influence it.
Presidential campaigns alone can run into a billion dollars.
I'm not familiar enough with the details to claim that the numbers in OP take the #1 spot but they're definitely in the top 3 and that's very significant as we've seen with the recent change of tone from parties
I was looking at https://www.opensecrets.org/industries because this site inspired me, it suggest finance/insurance/real estate spent $1,249,076,508 so far in the 2024 election cycle which seems a lot more plausible than $50 million. The risk-reward here suggests industries should be pumping billions into elections. The payoffs for regulatory capture are huge and the crypto people are novices compared to anyone else in finance.
Agreed. But we are talking about crypto here which seem to have a lot more than shitcoins. (Hint: search for "bitcoin" or "stablecoins")
And that's just a particularly high-profile example; smaller organizations and individuals routinely face this sort of thing from centralized payment processors. Said risk is nonexistent with any competently-developed cryptocurrency (and even most incompetently-developed ones).
You could make a pretty strong argument that overly stringent regulations that result in sex workers, etc., being unable to process payments are a violation of that, but I'm not aware of why Visa/Mastercard don't support Gab & Parler. If it's that, you have a point. Otherwise, not really.
These data exhibit a clear rightward bias.
> most of the other players in the big tech sector
Yeah, such as union-busting Amazon or Google. /s
Is there a vibe shift happening on HN?
Everyone else is generally tired of hearing about it in the second decade of not delivering the marketing promises.
Every time you purchased something with a card, you give the card provider 2% of the price. There's a lot of interest in maintaining that.
Wikipedia: > In the United States, the fee averages approximately 2% of transaction value.[2] In the EU, interchange fees are capped to 0.3% of the transaction for credit cards and to 0.2% for debit cards, while there is no cap for corporate cards.
Nazi Germany from 1933-1945? Fascist Italy until 1944? Venezuela today? USSR until 1991? North Korea today?
Did you not learn any history ever?
